Greater London Employment Forum Wednesday 21 July 2010 At 15.00 approx (or on the rising of the sides) London Councils’ 59½ Southwark Street London SE1 OAL

Employers’ Side: Conference Suite, First Floor 14.00 Union Side: Room 3, First Floor 14.00 Contact Officer: Ana Gradiska Telephone: 020 7934 9702 Email: ana.gradiska@londoncouncils.gov.uk

Agenda item

1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

2 ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR FOR 2010/11 The constitution provides that the positions of Chair and Vice-Chair should alternate between the two sides on an annual basis. This year it is the turn of the Union Side to provide the Chair

3 CONFIRMATION OF GLEF MEMBERSHIP 2010/11

4 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING To agree the minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2009

5 MATTERS ARISING To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the last meeting

6 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN HACKNEY Caroline Anderson (Assistant Director of HR & OD) will make a presentation

7 CURRENT POSITION ON NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL PAY The Union Side wishes to discuss the current position on NJC pay

8 UPDATE ON SINGLE STATUS To share information on the latest position in London 9 NJC WORKING PARTY ON RECRUITMENT, RETENTION AND CAREER PROGRESSION OF SOCIAL WORKERS The Union Side wishes to discuss the work of the group and to identify what regional monitoring might be put in place to track progress in applying recommendations that emerge from the working party

10 AGENCY WORKERS The Union Side wishes to discuss the continuing high level of use of agency workers within London local government

11 DATE OF NEXT MEETING Wednesday 17 November 2010 at 3.00 (side meetings at 2.00)

## Employers’ Side

| Borough | Rep | Party | Dep | Party | |-------------------------------|----------------|-------|----------------|-------| | Barking & Dagenham | John White | Lab | Darrel Yawitch | Con | | Barnet | Andrew Harper | Con | Linda Bailey | Con | | Bexley | Colin Tandy | Con | Patricia Harrison | Lab | | Brent | Lesley Jones | Lab | Graham Arthur | Con | | Bromley | Tony Owen | Con | | | | Camden | Sarah Hayward | Lab | | | | Croydon | Sara Bashford | Con | Eddy Arram | Con | | Ealing | Yvonne Johnson | Lab | | | | Enfield | Andrew Stafford| Lab | | | | Greenwich | Peter Brooks | Lab | | | | Hackney | Karen Alcock | Lab | | | | Hammersmith & Fulham | Alex Karmel | Con | | | | Haringey | Joe Goldberg | Lab | Claire Kober | Lab | | Harrow | Graham Henson | Lab | Nana Asante | Lab | | Havering | Roger Ramsey | Con | | | | Hillingdon | Scott Seaman-Digby | Con | Philip Corthorne | Con | | Hounslow | Ruth Cadbury | Lab | | | | Islington | Paul Convery | Lab | Richard Greening | Lab | | Kensington & Chelsea | Mark Daley | Con | Rolson Davies | Lib Dem| | Kingston upon Thames | Derek Osbourne | Lib Dem| | | | Lambeth | Jackie Meldrum | Lab | | | | Lewisham | Sir Steve Bullock | Lab | Paul Maslin | Lab | | Merton | Mark Allison | Lab | Nick Draper | Lab | | Newham | Sir Robin Wales| Lab | Alec Kellaway | Lab | | Redbridge | Keith Prince | Con | Nicholas Hayes | Con | | Richmond upon Thames | Tony Arbour | Con | | | | Southwark | Richard Livingstone | Lab | Fiona Colley | Lab | | Sutton | John Drage | Lib Dem| | | | Tower Hamlets | David Edgar | Lab | Joshua Peck | Lab | | Waltham Forest | Afzal Akram | Lab | Peter Barnett | Lab | | Wandsworth | Maurice Heaster| Con | | | | Westminster | Angela Harvey | Con | | | | City of London | | | | |

## Union Side

### Unison

| Name | Position | |--------|----------| | April | Ashley | | George | Binette\* | | Phil | Lewis\* | | Brian | Blake | | Louise | Couling | | Jenny | Densham+ | | Rosemary | Plummer+ | | Jane | Doolan | | Vicky | Easton | | Sean | Fox | | Margaret | Greer × | | Rob | Tasker × | | Gloria | Hanson | | Sonya | Howard | | Andy | Knight | | Jackie | Lewis | | Sue | Plain | | Helen | Steel | | | 3 vacancies |

### Unite

| Name | Position | |--------|----------| | Ian | Burgess | | Esther | Rey | | Kevin | Simmons | | Paul | Travers | | Rachel | Young | | | Two vacancies |

### GMB

| Name | Position | |--------|----------| | Jackie | Nield | | Dave | Powell | | Ted | Purcell | | Tony | Smith | | Eileen | Theaker | | Vaughan| West | | Anne | Price | | Paul | Levett |

______________________________________________________________________

- Job share

* Job share

X Job share Minutes of the meeting held on 18 November 2009 at London Councils' offices

ATTENDANCE

Employers Cllr Helena Hart Barnet Cllr Colin Tandy Bexley Cllr Tony Owen Bromley Cllr Sara Bashford Croydon Cllr Ian Potts Ealing Cllr Peter Brooks Greenwich Cllr Alex Karmel H & F Cllr Paul Osborn Harrow Cllr Eric Munday Havering Cllr Helen Klier Lewisham Cllr Samantha George Merton Cllr Christine Bowden Newham Cllr Sue Nolan Redbridge Cllr Stephen Knight Richmond Cllr Lorraine Zuleta Southwark Cllr Maurice Heaster Wandsworth Cllr Angela Harvey Westminster

Union Side Vicky Easton Unison Rita Ash Unison April Ashley Unison Louise Couling Unison Sonya Howard Unison Sean Fox Unison Glenn Kelly Unison Rosemary Plummer Unison Helen Steel Unison Paul Travers Unite Kevin Simmons Unite Esther Ray Unite Dave Powell GMB Eileen Theaker GMB Vaughan West GMB

GUESTS Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive of LB Barking and Dagenham

London Councils officers and Carol Lewis (Unison) were in attendance.

1. Apologies for Absence Apologies were received from Cllrs Gavin Sneddon (Brent), Karen Alcock (Hackney), Ian Reid (Kingston), Jackie Meldrum (Lambeth), and John Drage (Sutton, Margaret Beck (Unison), Jackie Lewis (Unison) and Sue Plain (Unison)

2. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for 2009/10.

Cllr Angela Harvey was elected as the Chair of GLEF, and Vaughan West was elected as the Vice Chair.

The Unions said that there were currently some vacancies on the Union side, and that Employers would be notified as soon as those vacancies were filled.

3. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2009

The minutes were agreed as an accurate record of the meeting which took place on 19 May 2009, with one proviso. Under item 5 Cllr Harvey challenged that it was “a fact” that many boroughs had significantly increased members’ allowances recently and no evidence had so far been produced. The Union Side indicated that it would share the research findings relating to London with the Employers.

4. Matters arising

There were no matters arising.

5. Presentation: Apprenticeships in London Local Government

Rob Whiteman, Chief Executive of LB Barking and Dagenham gave a presentation on his authority’s approach to apprenticeships and an overview of the issues for London local government:

- The Government’s aim was that by 2020, 1 in 5 16-18 year olds would be in apprenticeships. However, currently, only 1 in 20 Londoners in this age group were in apprenticeships, as employers in London tended to recruit graduates from Higher Education rather than school leavers.
- London Local Authorities had committed to recruiting 2000 apprentices by 2012, and the GLA family to 3000 (mainly in Crossrail). The intention was not only to provide short-term employment for young people, but to equip them with skills and experience that would enable them to get good jobs in the future.
- LB Barking and Dagenham had provided apprenticeships in a variety of sectors, including Health and Social care, IT, and construction. In particular, they targeted NEETS, ex-young offenders, and women returning to the workplace.
- Boroughs would be able to use their Section 106 agreements to ensure that regeneration projects employ local young people on construction sites.
- Barking and Dagenham was encouraging private sector employers to take on apprentices, and providing them with help and incentives to do so. The Unions said they supported the apprenticeships, but were concerned that some employers would use apprentices as cheap labour, and that the scheme might lead to a reduction in ‘real’ jobs. It was important that work was available at the end of the apprenticeship otherwise the skills acquired could be lost or diluted.

The Employers said that they supported the development of apprenticeships and emphasised the need for apprenticeships to attract all people who had fallen out of the work place or had changed career, as opposed to only targeting school leavers. The regional Working Group would be developing guidance and offering support to authorities in taking forward their individual schemes.

The Chair said that Westminster had set up the London Apprenticeships Company, which was based on an Australian model. The scheme provided apprenticeships in the private sector, with the local authority providing support and training.

The presentation is available on request.

The Union Side asked if it could have an extra place on the Apprenticeships Working Group. Simon Pannell said that the intention was to keep it as a small working group, but that it was sensible that a substitute be nominated for situations in which Jane Doolan was unable to attend.

5. Single Status Update

The Union Side expressed its disappointment that an offer had still not been made in Redbridge, 10 years after the initial national framework agreement. At least three times in recent months the unions had been told that an offer would be made after the next Cabinet meeting, but this kept being repeated without an offer emerging.

The Chair indicated that the employers shared the disappointment at the delay. She introduced Cllr Sue Nolan from LB Redbridge to the unions, and said that negotiations on single status were continuing in Redbridge, and an offer to unions would be made shortly. The authority was keen to resolve the matter as soon as possible.

Vicky Easton clarified the position with regard to Stefan Cross withdrawing his claims against Unison.

6. Any other business

Justin Bowden – It was noted that Justin Bowden would no longer be involved with GLEF, as he had moved on to a role at the GMB national headquarters. The Employers asked that their congratulations be passed on to Justin and that he be thanked for his significant contribution to the regional machinery in recent years. This page is intentionally blank The National Joint Council for Local Government Services

Working Party on Recruitment, Retention and Career Progression of Social Workers

Interim Report and Recommendations

March 2010 Progress to date and next steps

This interim report has been issued by the Working Party to demonstrate the progress that has been made so far. The report contains outline recommendations for the NJC to consider in due course. However, in the time available so far and in the absence of some further resources, the Working Party has not been able to begin any further work necessary to provide detailed proposals for the NJC to examine. The further work needed includes:

- Examining existing initiatives in councils to identify good practice to include in advice on how to work with the proposed national career framework
- Developing sample role profiles that illustrate how professional progression can take place, together with job evaluation of these benchmark roles
- Further research on the job evaluation and grading outcomes of recent pay reviews
- Obtaining legal advice on possible equal pay questions.

The Working Party has therefore asked the NJC, through the Joint Secretaries to provide resources to take this work forward.

Once this work is completed, the Working Party will issue a final report for consideration by the NJC.

## Contents

| | | |---|---| | 1. | Introduction | 4 | | 2. | Key Recommendations | 4 | | 3. | Why this report? | 7 | | 4. | A National Career Framework | 8 | | 5. | Job Evaluation | 10 | | 6. | Allied Roles | 11 | | 7. | Equal Pay | 12 | | 8. | Market Supplements | 12 | | 9. | Costs | 13 | | 10. | Working Party Terms of Reference | 14 | | 11. | Key Principles agreed by the Working Party | 14 | | 12. | Summaries of Key Evidence | 17 |

1. Introduction This report is the initial outcome of joint working by the partners to the National Joint Council for Local Government Services on the issue of improving the recruitment, retention and career progression of qualified social workers. The NJC is responsible for the national aspects of terms and conditions of some 1.2 million local government workers, including social workers in England and Wales. The NJC set up a working party to look at social work careers in response to the findings of the national Social Work Task Force that reported its findings in November 2009.

The Task Force, which had a remit covering England only, identified some issues around the career structure and job evaluation of social workers that need to be addressed as part of wider moves to make sure that experienced social workers can be recruited and retained in front line practice. The recommendations of the Task Force were accepted by the Government. A national Social Work Reform Board has been set up to oversee the carrying out of the Task Force recommendations. The Reform Board has accepted the work of the NJC as one of the main ways of delivering changes in social work career structures.

This work is important and extremely challenging. The Employers and Trade Unions as partners to the NJC recognise the urgent need to begin to address the key issues identified by the Task Force. However, they also recognise the need to introduce changes that make sense within the wider terms and conditions framework for local government workers. The NJC believes that there is much value in the unified single status approach to terms and conditions because it helps promote a common working ethos. The recommendations set out here are aimed at making a real difference whilst maintaining the important benefits of the local government pay framework.

2. Key Recommendations

3. Career Framework The group recommends that the NJC should consider producing a strong endorsement of the national career framework as set out in the Social Work Task Force report. This endorsement should make it clear that Councils should use the framework in assessing the fitness for purpose of their current local social work career pathways and grade structures and as a model for any changes that need to be made.

In preparing advice and support to accompany the endorsement of the career framework, the group suggests that the NJC may be able to make use of material that is being developed by the national Social Work Reform Board.

2. Role profiles In order to strengthen the development of new career frameworks, Councils need to ensure that they maintain robust job evaluation exercises that produce a consistent approach to grading.

To this end the group recommends that the NJC should consider the production of a series of benchmark job profiles for a suitable range of jobs and provide suitably moderated job evaluation scores for these profiles. Scores will need to be provided using the main job evaluation schemes used in local government – i.e. the NJC, GLPC and Hay schemes.

The group recommends that profiles and scores should be developed for the following jobs:

- Assistant practitioner
- Newly qualified social worker
- Social worker
- Senior social worker
- Practice Educator/Teacher
- Social Work Team Manager
- Advanced social work practitioner

The NJC will also need to examine the development of trainee social worker roles, although a benchmark profile may not be needed.

As career frameworks for social work develop, the range of benchmark profiles required may change and expand. As part of regular monitoring of outcomes, the NJC will need to think about preparation of new benchmark profiles when needed.

3. Qualified Social Workers There is a need to ensure that specific questions that have arisen about the job evaluation outcomes of qualified social workers are properly addressed, by ensuring roles provide a logical hierarchy, with career progression steps between them. The Working Party recommends that the NJC should consider promulgating a national agreement that requires councils that have completed job evaluation exercises for social workers to review roles against the national benchmark profiles and councils that have yet to evaluate social work jobs to use the national benchmarks when they do so.

4. Allied roles The group believes that both the future supply of qualified social workers and the vital support for field social workers will be enhanced if people in closely allied roles are given clear pathways and opportunities to move into professional social work. Much of the work on this is being done by the Social Work Reform Board but the group recommends that the NJC should consider examining the role profiles and specifications of a number of roles allied to social work to ensure that they provide:

- Scope for professional qualification and development
- Core responsibilities that clearly support professional social workers

In practice, because of the wide variation in job titles for allied roles, the NJC will need to take steps to clearly identify the jobs it is interested in. The group suggests that the best approach is to look at the tasks and responsibilities assigned to roles. The most relevant will include:

- Doing assessments (initial and core)
- Holding own caseload (albeit with often nominal ‘under the direction of’ arrangements)
- Writing court reports
- Child and adult safeguarding/protection investigations
- Exercising statutory intervention powers

Having examined these roles, the NJC will need to consider whether or not it needs to provide any additional advice to councils.

5. Equal Pay It must always be remembered that social workers are employed on common terms and conditions with other Local Government Services employees and care must be taken to ensure that no inadvertent equal pay issues are created in pursuing recommendations 1-4. The Working Party recommends that the NJC should consider:

- Obtaining legal advice to provide a proper risk assessment of the recommendations
- Reissue its longstanding joint advice on pay reviews and equal pay having ensured that it is up to date in the light of recent litigation

06. Market Supplements The Working Party believes that development of more suitable career frameworks for social workers that allow for progression whilst continuing in front line practice and are well job evaluated should reduce the need to offer market supplements to aid recruitment. Nevertheless, some market supplements will be inevitable and the NJC should consider drawing attention to its own existing advice on the subject.

07. Implications for Wales The Task Force report and recommendations applied specifically to England. The NJC also covers Wales. The Working Party does not believe that recommendations 1-6 would contradict any devolved government initiatives in Wales but the NJC should of course ensure that this is the case when it considers the recommendations.

08. Taking forward recommendations 1-7 The Working Party recommends that a small joint consultative group be set up within the NJC to ensure that the continuing work programme is properly overseen.

09. Councils outside the NJC A few upper-tier Councils have opted-out of the NJC, although they may still use NJC guidance. The Working Party assumes that the Reform Board expects career progression to improve and develop in all Councils and suggests that the NJC could ask the Reform Board to make this point clear.

10. Why this report? The NJC responded to a number of the key findings of the national Social Work Task Force as set out in the following extract from the Task Force report:

Extract from Social Work Task Group Report on Pay “Social worker pay has been raised in a number of ways with the Task Force, and the concerns we have heard were summarised in our interim report.

3.30 Pay for new social workers is comparable to other professions. However, there is evidence that a clearer career structure, with opportunities to progress to greater responsibility and higher pay, while continuing to work on the front line, will help recruitment, promote retention, and ultimately improve the quality of frontline services.

3.31 The Task Force has also seen evidence that suggests social workers have done badly in the job evaluation exercises carried out in some local authorities, which underrated their knowledge and skills. This has led to them being paid less than other professionals with comparable expertise and knowledge. 3.32 We believe these issues need to be resolved by setting out clearly defined levels of skill, responsibility and role, which can be reflected in local authority grading structures in order to deliver pay progression. This would provide agreed and nationally recognised career progression, while leaving to local arrangements the structure and size of individual teams.

3.33 We also recommend that, as part of the standard for employers, employers should review their job evaluation of basic grade social workers to ensure that their knowledge and skills are being fairly rewarded. We are making recommendations founded on the current national agreement on local government pay, as both employers and unions have told us they are willing to act swiftly to make significant change a reality. However, if this turns out not to be the case, we believe that the government should consider whether a national pay body is needed to ensure social workers are fairly rewarded.”

Although the task force did not produce a headline recommendation on pay, it is clear that they refrained because of an expectation that employers and unions would look closely at the issues involved and come forward with some solutions. The task force did however, produce a key recommendation about the career framework for social workers (recommendation 10), as follows:

We are recommending a **single, nationally recognised career structure**. This new career structure would

- map each of the main stages of a career in social work from degree course entrant onwards, making clear the expectations that should apply to social workers at each of these stages give shape to the more coherent and effective **national framework for the continuing professional development of social workers** which we are also recommending and which should incorporate the new Masters in Social Work Practice
- guide individual employers in how the social work task is best organised in localities with the right mix of expertise within frontline teams and how they should configure their workforce to support progression
- ensure that social workers are paid fairly, in line with their skills, knowledge and level of responsibility – with, in particular, progression routes available to high quality, specialist practitioners which do not remove them from frontline practice

This key recommendation, along with the quite specific remarks about job evaluation, provides the focus for the recommendations that this working party is putting to the NJC. We turn first to the national career framework 4. A National Career Framework

The national Task Force has recommended that employers should use the pattern set out in the proposed national career framework in designing and refining their own career structures for social workers. The national framework is illustrated in figure 1 below. The Working Party has noted that the framework as it stands does not appear to sufficiently differentiate team leader roles as used in some Councils and hopes that the Reform Board can clarify this point.

The framework is designed to produce a relationship between assessed standards and to demonstrate that social workers can progress in their careers without moving into management positions that take them away from frontline practice. The Task Force has some concerns that careers for social workers who do not move into management tend to stagnate compared with other professional groups. The Task Force illustrated this problem in figure 2 below.

Figure 1 The Working Party has noted this evidence of career stagnation from the Task Force report and has also taken into account the evidence from an IDS report prepared for Unison (see Summaries of Key Evidence). The IDS report shows that Councils have tended to make much less use of the senior social worker grade than might be expected. This can contribute to a bunching of staff in “standard” social worker roles with few routes to clear career progression. Furthermore, the LGE survey suggests that, on average, social workers can expect only about 8 incremental stages, in perhaps two linked grades before they need to look at moving into management in order to progress.

Cost will always be a factor in the availability of posts and there will also be important considerations about the best design of teams and units, which are being looked at by the Reform Board. However, if there is a key policy priority to find ways to maximise the time people spend at the frontline, then there is a clear case for designing grading structures around the national career framework. The framework provides a progression pathway from graduate entry to possible advanced practitioner roles which, if used, need to be properly differentiated.

The working party has begun making contact with councils and regional groups that have already begun to examine social work career structures. It is hoped that these contacts will help identify good practice that can be built into advice issued by the NJC.

5. Job Evaluation Nobody who has been through the experience would argue that job evaluation (JE) is a perfect process. Minor differences will always emerge because the quality of the scoring outcome depends on the accuracy and completeness of the information provided on jobs. However, JE is the best process available for developing a ranking of jobs in an organisation and it is important to ensure that it is applied as consistently as possible.

JE is rightly conducted by individual Councils because they are the employers. The scores produced in individual cases therefore depend on local job descriptions and specifications. There is no suggestion that uniform national job descriptions should be developed. However, national priority is being given to ensuring an adequate supply of properly and consistently qualified social workers and to giving the cohort every encouragement to remain at the frontline. A key aspect of this is the national career framework that has already been referred to.

In order to help Councils develop their local grading structures in line with the national framework, it is important to provide clear and consistent examples of the sort of roles that are envisaged as part of the national framework - and how they might fit into a grading structure, and provide a logical hierarchy of roles with career progression steps between them.

The group has begun to examine a number of examples of job descriptions and other relevant documents supplied by Councils and has noted that, while there is a good deal of consistency in the approaches adopted, there are some differences that could usefully be checked out, which can contribute to the bunching of post holders and lack of differentiation of jobs in a career pathway referred to earlier.

For example, because of the weighted scoring structure, one of the key factors in all three of the main JE schemes used in local government (NJC, GLPC and Hay) is the “knowledge factor”. The situation in the Hay scheme is admittedly more complicated than in the other two but the same issues apply.

The most common level of knowledge score for social workers is level 6 under all three main schemes. In the NJC Scheme, the level is described as “specialist professional jobs requiring extended previous formal training, to graduate or professional qualification level, or equivalent, plus training or experience in the application of the knowledge to the specific requirements of the job”. In the GLPC scheme, the level is described as “jobs requiring advanced/high level knowledge and skills in a specialist discipline”. In Hay, the level is described as “jobs requiring a high degree of proficiency in a specialised or technical field, involving a broad grasp of theoretical principles and concepts gained through extensive experience”. It is distinguished from the basic professional and is described as the seasoned professional.

Most social worker posts provided as examples to the group are indeed scored at level 6 however in a small number of cases observed so far, the score has been set at level 5. The NJC will need to examine a more systematic sample as part of its ongoing work to assess the issue in more detail. There may also be a lack of sufficient differentiation in scoring for posts identified as “senior”, which will need to be examined.

Scoring for individual jobs reflect the descriptions and local circumstances so there is no sense in which scores can be seen as “wrong”. However, in the context of ensuring that coherent career development is available on a consistent basis to the whole cohort of social workers, it does make sense for Councils to take a fresh look at roles and scoring to satisfy themselves that it meets their needs and makes sense. Although as has been mentioned the knowledge factor is highly weighted in the overall score, there may be other factors that make an important difference at the margins for some jobs.

An exercise of this sort will be facilitated by developing a series of benchmark job profiles with evaluation scores. These would not be standard job profiles to be implemented everywhere but would act as sense-checks for local job profiles. The working party has begun the process of collecting job descriptions and other relevant information from a sample of Councils in order to conduct an analysis of job evaluation outcomes. This work is at an early stage but will provide the foundation for further work to be carried out under the auspices of the NJC.

6. Allied Roles The research conducted for the LGA has identified how challenging it is to make caseloads more manageable and to deal with increased referrals in the wake of recent high-profile cases. The work that people do in close association with qualified social workers in teams is very important in providing sustainable solutions to these problems.

One of the main challenges the group has found in developing any recommendations about allied roles is that there is a wide variety of job titles in use which are not particularly helpful. These include family support workers, assistant social workers, social work assistants, community care workers etc. However we believe it is much clearer when you look at tasks and responsibilities.

These may include:

- Doing assessments (initial and core)
- Holding own caseload (albeit with often nominal ‘under the direction of’ arrangements)
- Writing court reports
- Child and adult safeguarding/protection investigations
- Exercising statutory intervention powers

Clearly these tasks are very important in ensuring that caseloads are managed efficiently and that social workers have the time they need to concentrate on cases. Importantly, these tasks are also a good proving ground for the basic skills and aptitudes needed to move into mainstream qualified social work. More attention needs to be paid to providing clear career pathways for people in these allied roles.

7. Equal Pay The Working Party recognises the importance of dealing with equal pay issues but believes that, because there is no intention to create standard national jobs they should not raise undue equal pay risks and liabilities. The purpose of the benchmark role profiles is to act as a reference point for a local review of roles within the career framework. The NJC may wish to obtain legal advice to confirm that any equal pay risks are low. The NJC will also need to ensure that the advice it issues to Councils on equal pay issues is up-to-date. There has been a considerable development of case-law and experience since the 2004 agreement that required local pay reviews and advice needs to take account of this.

8. Market Supplements Proper development of career frameworks referenced against job evaluation should help reduce the need for market supplements, though the need to ensure recruitment in variable jobs markets will mean that some use of market supplements is inevitable. The working party has noted that the NJC has longstanding guidance available on the correct use of market supplements and recommends that this guidance should be reiterated and highlighted as part of a package of support on social work issues.

9. Costs The working party believes that two principle cost factors may emerge as social work career frameworks are developed and reviewed:

- An increased number of social workers in senior and advanced grades, including practice educators
- Potential re-grading of social workers in some Councils following a review of job roles and evaluation

Given the need to produce interim recommendations quickly, the Working Party has not had time to begin any detailed work on potential costs. It is suggested that the NJC will need to take steps to understand and agree cost implications as it considers the main recommendations in this report.

Based on the experience of general local pay reviews since 2004, it is difficult to envisage a situation in which changes to career and grading structures do not involve some increases in costs. However, as always, the potential costs for individual councils will vary according to local circumstances and are difficult to estimate.

It can be argued reasonably that the cost impact of the proposals around career frameworks and job evaluation would not be as dramatic as it might have been had recent pay reviews not taken place. Jobs have been recently evaluated or are in the process of evaluation and many councils are already looking seriously at career frameworks, so the approach is not a dramatic and sudden one. Furthermore, the Working Party believes that over the longer term the development of better career frameworks will aid retention and reduce the need for use of agency staff, thus generating savings in recruitment costs and the premium paid for agency staff.

However, it should be kept in mind that the overall aim is to help deliver an increase in the supply and skills of qualified social workers. The LGA has recently commissioned research from Loughborough University which conducted a survey and detailed panel research to gauge the costs of implementing the recommendations in the Laming report, which focused especially on problems in Children's social work in the wake of the Baby Peter case.

This research looked in part at the need to ensure more manageable case loads in the light of increases in referrals and assessments. This is bound to involve an increase in numbers of experienced social workers - a supply that will be facilitated by a clearer career framework. The working party agrees with the national Task Force that career stagnation does not help in retaining social workers for long-term careers.

The Loughborough research looked in part at recruitment and retention difficulties. The relevant section of the report is reproduced in the Summaries of Key Evidence.

The question of how any increased costs should be funded must of course be dealt with elsewhere. The Working Party anticipates that the Social Work Reform Board will wish to address wider potential costs and the need for funding.

10. Working Party Terms of Reference The terms of reference for the working party were agreed as follows:

The parties to the NJC for LGS have agreed to establish a working party to examine how the recruitment, retention and career progression of Social Workers might be improved through initiatives based around the existing national pay framework set out in the Green Book.

The working party will need to examine:

- The availability and quality of data on pay and career progression for social workers
- The experience of job evaluation and grading under local pay reviews
- The need for, and outline content of, additional advice on career and grade structures
- Any implications for allied roles

The Working Party will meet as necessary with the aim of producing a report and recommendations by the end of March 2010 at the latest. The report will be presented to the NJC in the first instance, for discussions on how best to take forward the recommendations. The working party will comprise six members from each side. It will be for each side to make its own arrangements for additional support for its own delegation.

The working party may wish to jointly commission expert advice to assist in this work.

The responsibility for chairing the working party will alternate between the sides.

11. Key Principles agreed by the Working Party

Early on in its deliberations, the working party agreed a number of key principles to guide its work and help give an overall focus to its final recommendations. It is helpful to reproduce them here as part of the context for the recommendations set out earlier in the report:

The group agrees that it will operate by consensus as far as possible There will always be differences of both principle and emphasis between employer and union "sides". However it was agreed that in framing proposals for the NJC, the group should avoid a sides-based approach as much as possible. Issues should be discussed collectively in an attempt to produce unanimously supported proposals.

The group agree that it will adopt an evidence-based approach where possible There are many assumptions that are made routinely about Social Work career issues. It is important wherever possible to examine clear evidence to avoid crude assumptions. The group recognised that the timetable for its work made it impossible to commission primary research. Therefore a sub-group involving CWDC and Skills for Care to examine the best available data sources.

The group agrees that, given the tight timescales, it will not be possible to produce fully developed proposals. Given the need to report to the NJC by the end of March to demonstrate that progress is being made, the group agreed that its recommendations are likely to include asking the NJC to carry out further work.

The group agrees that proposals put to the NJC should focus on the areas where it can make most impact. These are advice on job evaluation and career structures. There are other proposals from the national Task Force covering vital areas of skills development, assessment in practice and so forth which all have to form part of an integrated approach but they are being dealt with elsewhere. The group agrees that Social Workers should remain within the current Local Government Single Status pay framework. Single Status is a major building-block for the integrated and continuously improving provision of services to local communities. If different groups split away from the core workforce, we are much more likely to see a return to the silo mentality of separate services which was so damaging in the past. There are also considerable equal pay risks in setting up a new pay structure within a common employer. Separate pay arrangements are under development for school support staff in order to deal with the issues which arise from their being employed in different establishments, i.e. schools and from the delegated powers given to school governing bodies to individually determine grading for school support staff. These considerations do not apply in respect of social workers. Working within the national framework also allows for consideration of implications for other roles that are allied to social work.

The group agrees that all proposals must apply equally to children's and adults social workers. Whilst it is true that the headline issues to date have been about problem cases and recruitment and retention difficulties in children's services, there are growing challenges in adult care, especially for the elderly. The development of integrated service thinking is vital in approaching these challenges, which are all about developing stronger communities and keeping people safe within them.

The group agrees that there is a need to balance national consistency in approaches to Social Work jobs with the flexibility that councils need to recruit within their own labour markets. The 1997 Single Status agreement set a balance between consistency within a framework and local market flexibility and is especially important given that many Councils have just finished or are close to finishing the process of local pay reviews.

The group agrees that the proposed national career framework in the Social Work Taskforce Report forms a useful working model for any proposals. The basic career structure outlined has received significant general endorsement and is designed to provide coherence about the kind of career development that social workers can expect from any employer.

The group agrees that there will be funding and affordability implications arising from our proposals. In order to deliver on the task force recommendations on a national career framework and improving reward and progression for social workers in line with their skills and responsibilities, the working party agreed that there will be additional cost implications. The NJC will collectively need to ensure that clear representations are made about the funding arrangements needed to allow our proposals to be put into practice consistently.

12. Summaries of Key Evidence In the time available, the group examined a variety of available sources of evidence about the pay and career framework for social workers, including:

- A report prepared by Incomes Data Services for Unison (Slow Progress)
- An LGE report for the LGA Group prepared as part of action in response to the national Task Force
- A report prepared by Loughborough University for the LGA on the costs of implementing the Laming proposals

The key findings from the various evidence sources used are summarised in extracts below.

Incomes Data Services Report for Unison “UNISON commissioned Incomes Data Services (IDS) to undertake research on the market levels of pay for social workers compared to other major professional staff groups in the public sector. The purpose of the research is to look at the pay and progression arrangements in order to inform Unison’s pay negotiations for this group. This report draws on sources of existing data, which will be supplemented at a later date with the results of a bespoke survey into the pay and progression arrangements for social work staff.”

**Key findings from IDS**

- There is significant use of a mainstream social worker grade, often in place of a career-grade structure

- The bespoke survey shows that most social workers are concentrated at the mainstream social worker level

- All other levels or grades of social worker make up a minority of the social worker workforce in comparison

- The distribution of social workers suggests that progression arrangements are not functioning effectively

- Significant variations between local authorities suggest that traditional social worker progression structures are being adapted to suit local circumstances

- Salaries for senior social workers vary considerably between individual councils, indicating a lack of a defined structure or role definition at this level

- There is significant variation in minimum salaries. This suggests that market pressures have forced some organisations to increase minimum or starter salaries

- Progression within grades is by annual increments. In some cases, this appears to be the only form of progression available

- Where a competency framework or career grade structure is in place, the disproportionate number of employees on mainstream social worker grades appears to show that these are not being used effectively

- Salaries paid to newly-qualified social workers are typically higher than those paid to teachers and health professionals. Only police officers are paid slightly higher

- The relative position of social workers’ salaries declines with length of service and seniority. At first they fall behind teachers at the main professional level, and then behind both teachers and health professionals at the senior professional level.

- An analysis of earnings data supports the view that only a small minority of social workers are progressing to the higher professional level. This stands in sharp contrast to school teachers where more than half of classroom teachers in England and Wales are now employed on the senior teachers’ spine.

The Social Work Career Structure - Analysis of LGE survey data LGE conducted a rapid analysis of data from a sample of councils in summer 2009 and also drew together some material from existing wider surveys, to inform the policy debate on social workers within LGA Group. The main findings are summarised below.

Median pay for LG SWs in 2008 is £28,770. Median pay for all SWs from the 2008 ASHE survey is £27,779. However, the basic figure does not allow any real comparisons with pay rates specifically in the NHS and voluntary sector, for which detailed figures are not available. It might be possible to use the difference in pay between LG and non-LG SWs as an argument in favour of greater regulation of pay across different employers. Also, the figures do not produce any conclusions on whether or not pay rates are a strong factor in recruitment and retention difficulties.

Recent LGE research into the career structures of SWs indicates that Councils have in practice adopted quite similar systems, with variations in actual pay levels probably explainable by regional labour market differences.

Councils were asked to provide separate information, where applicable, on Children’s and Adult’s SWs. Generally, respondents indicated that there are no differences in salary and progression, though there are some differences in additions to basic pay, which can probably be explained by differences in responsibility. There are isolated cases where either Children’s or Adult’s SWs have higher earnings potential. There are occasional differences in actual earnings as well, linked probably to length of service of actual employees.

Qualified SWs tend to progress through two grades in a career grade structure, with a median number of 8 incremental steps in total, before reaching the lowest managerial level. The median starting salary is £24,402 on average and the median maximum salary at the top of the two grades is £35,079. Additions, especially market supplements add about 5% to basic salary on average but some Councils do not offer significant additions. The average figure for additions is very similar to that identified for the whole workforce in the most recent LGE-LGAAR survey (5.3%). A basic analysis of the situation in Councils in London and SE, compared with the rest of the country has been carried out because there is insufficient data for a comprehensive regional analysis. Even this must be treated with caution, given the sample size but if does show variations in average salary etc that correspond logically with labour market situations. For example the average starting salary on London and SE is £25,506, compared with £23,726 for the rest.

- Average gross earnings in London and SE are £31,788, including additions to basic pay of 6% on average.
- Average gross earnings are £29,695 in the rest of the country, including 4% additions to basic salary on average.

One of the most interesting geographical contrasts is the highest salary that SWs can achieve before they need to take on a managerial role. The average in London and SE is £38,352, compared with £34,647 elsewhere.

There is not much evidence available as yet to demonstrate the extent to which SWs have benefited from re-grading as a result of pay reviews. One Council offered some interesting information on its local pay review, which had generally resulted in pay improvements for SWs when assimilated to new grades. This did involve the removal of the previous career grade structure based on experience and qualifications however.

The shortage of Social Workers applying to one Council, prompted the decision to recruit from the United States through an overseas recruitment agency in order to fill the vacancies. However, the difference in culture and working conditions meant that all bar one newly appointed American social worker resigned within the first twelve months of service. Variations in case law, the nature of cases they were working on and the lack of management and supervision were all factors leading to their departure, not pay. The council is now looking to train and nurture its existing staff in order to ‘grow their own’ social workers of the future and to make the field of social work more accessible for applicants.

Extract from “Calculating the cost and capacity implications for local authorities implementing the Laming (2009) recommendations”, Section 7.

This report was prepared for the LGA by Centre for Child and Family Research, Loughborough University and includes a chapter that collates the unit cost implications of manageable case loads etc into a picture of overall national costs: 7. Recommendation 24: Recruitment and case-loads

The Social Work Task Force should:

- develop the basis for a national children’s social worker supply strategy that will address recruitment and retention difficulties, to be implemented by the Department for Children, Schools and Families. This should have a particular emphasis on child protection social workers;
- work with the Children’s Workforce Development Council and other partners to implement, on a national basis, clear progression routes for children’s social workers;
- develop national guidelines setting out maximum case-loads of children in need and child protection cases, supported by a weighting mechanism to reflect the complexity of cases, that will help plan the workloads of children’s social workers; and
- develop a strategy for remodelling children’s social work which delivers shared ownership of cases, administrative support and multi-disciplinary support to be delivered nationally.

(Recommendation 24)

7.1 Recruitment and retention

7.1.1 Data from the national survey reveals that around two thirds (65%) of the authorities had vacancies within their intake and referral teams, although a third of these were being covered by agency staff. Figure 7 below shows the vacancy rates by authority type. It is evident from this data that the shire authorities were the most likely to have vacancies within their intake and referral teams. Interviews also revealed the challenges that some local authorities experienced recruiting and retaining staff with the necessary skills and experience. Issues concerning recruitment and retention were seen to be a symptom of the low status of social work, as well the specific demands of child protection work and the anxieties this provokes. 7.1.2 Staff vacancies and the use of temporary, agency staff can limit opportunities to develop stable and supportive teams. Securing an appropriate balance between experienced and newly qualified workers within teams was problematic in a number of areas. LA G and LA H identified particular difficulties recruiting team managers, posts that were seen as critical to drive improvements in practice and support and direct teams. Senior managers were keen to try and avoid reliance on agency staff because this is an expensive solution. Questions were also raised about the quality and commitment of agency staff. This, alongside instability within teams could affect morale and effective team working.

7.2 Workload management and case-loads 7.2.1 The majority of local authorities reported that they did not have a formal workload management policy in place. However, 80% of authorities indicate that they weighted cases loads, most commonly against all three of the following criteria: Complexity of case; Case type (i.e. child protection, child in need); and Experience of worker (i.e. newly qualified, experienced). Seventy-two per cent also had systems in place to monitor case-loads over time in relation to changes in case complexity.

7.2.2 Data supplied on maximum case-loads indicated an average case load of 14 cases per child protection worker and 22 cases per child in need worker (range 12 -55). It should be noted that there were variations in definitions of cases, with some authorities providing case-load figures based on numbers of children, while other considered the number of families social workers were working with.

7.2.3 Findings from the frontline social work survey also revealed that there were considerable variations in case-loads, ranging from 9 to 24 children or 4 to 29 families per intake and referral team social worker. Analysis revealed that there was not a correlation between case-loads and number of years of post-qualifying experience. Newly qualified workers, with less than one year post-qualifying experience, reported both the lowest case-loads and some of the highest.

7.2.4 The majority of frontline workers surveyed (63%) reported an increase in case-loads over the past six months. Of the 34 respondents, only four reported that their case-loads were always manageable. The majority of the workers reported that their case-loads were manageable, most or some of the time (41% and 38% respectively). While all the workers reported that they could manage their case-loads at least some of the time, the majority reported that they did have to prioritise tasks (26:76%). Of the 26 workers that reported the need to prioritise tasks, the majority (16:62%) indicated that direct work with children and their families would be prioritised before other tasks. The national data suggests that the majority of authorities ‘occasionally’ exceed maximum child protection and children in need case-loads. The reasons for this are outlined in Figure 8 below. 7.2.5 Frontline staff and managers in the focus groups emphasised that they cannot simply turn cases away because they have ‘reached’ capacity. Therefore, increases in the volume and/or complexity of workloads means that, without additional staffing, practitioners either have to work longer, or reduce the time they spend on other activities. The timeliness of service responses may also be affected; with workers reporting a tendency to prioritise assessments that needed to be completed within statutory timescales. There is, however, a risk of delay and drift on cases that on the basis of presenting information are low priority.

“It’s not unmanageable, but we are not getting through things as quickly as we would like to (LA A).”

“It is always busy. A year ago it was busy, but manageable. Following Baby P, the numbers became, well a significant increase, in all referrals, but in terms of CP work, that rose dramatically. The knock on was that investigations went up, the number of people subject to investigations went up and out court work went up as well. Where as you get fluctuations like that in a day, or a report comes out for a team, the funding for a team like this is done on a yearly basis, so there hasn’t been any additional resources as a result of it (LA D).” 7.2.6 Workers in the focus groups also outlined that as workloads increase they have less time to work directly with children and their families and to build up trust with families. The issue of the proportion of time spent on direct work with families is explored in more detail in Section 9 below.

“we are actually moving away from social worker, we are case managers, we haven’t got the time to develop relationships with any of the families. We’re just jiggling things about and getting other services involved. (LA D)”

“its all about relationships and developing quality relationships and if you haven’t got those, you haven’t got the information to assess. Why would anyone tell you the truth? You need them to trust you and you can only get that by giving them time and getting them to trust you. And that’s difficult if you are cancelling appointments because you have something else coming in, jiggling your case-load. (LA D)”